If we consider the dominant approaches to tackling life’s big questions there are three that we use most often – Religion, Philosophy and Science.
Some people are more focussed on religion, some on philosophy, some on science and some use a combination of all three. However, it is rare to see a simultaneous combination of each. In fact, in some circles this unification is frowned on and discouraged.
So let’s explore this a bit more.
The traditional religious approach interprets a given scripture for guidance on the challenge or task at hand. Universal Medicine pioneers a different approach.
Like religion, the philosophical one asks us to contemplate our current lives through a range of existing models proposed by past authors and thinkers (Plato, Goethe, Nietzsche etc). Universal Medicine pioneers a different approach.
The scientific approach focusses on evidence and fostering understanding by reducing a topic to its component parts. This reductionist system asks us to look for the definable, the measurable, the experimentally repeatable, even if we have to segregate life into multiple compartments to achieve this. Universal Medicine pioneers a different approach.
Each traditional approach seems to lead to an oppositional standpoint and people are encouraged to fight for what is right, different, or better (in their view). The result is that each approach has become a separate study in its own right and we have become reliant on the ‘learned ones’ (clergy, professors of philosophy or scientists) to help us to fully understand what is meant.
The result is that people become disempowered and end up talking (and at times arguing) about the same issues but use such different language and constructs that the likelihood of finding an agreement is minimal.
The other outcome is that people become subservient to those with ‘greater knowledge’. More often than not, these people with ‘greater knowledge’ are not living examples of what they share but examples of someone with a good memory.
This is where the approach of Universal Medicine becomes so distinct.
How can groups of anywhere between 150-300 people from different religions, different levels of formal education, different professions, different cultural backgrounds, even different levels of competence with English meet and over the course of a day come to some strong alignment on matters of religion, philosophy and science?
This seems crazy to consider but this is a normal experience at a Universal Medicine workshop.
This begs the question “how does Universal Medicine work with religion, philosophy and science that enables this unification to occur?”
For Universal Medicine the religious approach is less about interpreting and recalling theological text and more about a discussion about what does and doesn’t leave us feeling connected to that which is sacred and equal within all.
As such, any discussion about religion is not about the past but about what does, and doesn’t, honour that sacred part within all, right now. In this way it is always current and with the times.
For Universal Medicine, the philosophical approach starts with the possibility of this sacredness and asks us to ponder in a very practical way a broader outlook on life.
In a recent example, a group explored the concept of time and how we put the past behind us and prepare for the future ahead. We place it in a straight line. Yet ponder for a moment if life might be more cyclical than it is lineal.
Do we not have day/night on endless loop; is this not complemented by seasons cycling around each year; do we not move with the cycle of the planet around the sun or the moon around the earth? If we consider reincarnation, then are we also not on an endless loop of birth, death and re-birth?
If this is possible, the philosophical and religious question becomes why have we turned life into a straight line, what cycles are we continuously repeating and are they there to show us about what is sacred within?
For Universal Medicine, the scientific approach is about YOU as a living science. The fact is that you experience life daily and can test any concept, theory or philosophy and verify its value almost immediately.
When we do this one of four things will happen. We will:
(1) confirm if an approach works for us
(2) force an approach to work for us until it fails
(3) confirm it doesn’t work or
(4) deny its value until such time that it presents to us once again to consider.
There are no winners, no losers, just all of us on the same path of learning with and from each other.
And so, here is the magic, the discussion about religion, philosophy and science all happening at the same time so we can talk about that sacred aspect of ourselves and the endless loop of learning we are presented with.
Then we can study ourselves as a science and see firsthand what we are learning, what we are forcing, what we are dismissing and what we are avoiding.
With absolute responsibility we can consider that we will be presented with the same lessons until we learn what is there to learn.
The religious debate is not about if we pray on a Saturday or Sunday, the philosophical debate is not if we exist at all and the scientific debate is not about disconnecting life from the sum of its parts.
It turns out that we need religion, philosophy and science to more fully understand life, but we need them without the dogma and we need them simultaneously and not compartmentalised – but truly lived.
by Joel Levin
Esoteric Teachings and Revelations – A New Study for Mankind
The Way of the Livingness: Understanding True Religion
649 thoughts on “Religion, Philosophy and Science = Revelation”
Yes, there is only one truth, ‘ there is only one unified truth that we innately know and recognise.’
We are all so much more when we understand what you have shared Joel, as we add to the energy we can live in when we are open in every aspect of life with the most Loving-transparency and thus respond to life in the most Loving way possible. .
Very true, it is almost impossible to put people from different beliefs in one room and get them to agree on something. So often I have noticed that people are stubborn in their beliefs because it gives them a source of identity, a perception of who they are. So when they are in discussion with another person about it, instead of trying to understand the other person’s point of view, what we often do is go into a battle to prove to them that we are right. This comes from an insecurity, from a place where you do not feel steady enough in what you know, think or feel is true that you need another person’s agreement to confirm that.
Many people do try to prove they are right, surely this is just a waste of energy, or even a misuse of a true and loving energy.
What you accurately describe Victoria is true and feels very horrible to be part of, or even witness such behaviour.
When we restrict everything to a straight line we are missing out on the connection that is offered when we feel the cycles in everything.
Yes, we feel the cycles in everything, ‘the philosophical and religious question becomes why have we turned life into a straight line, what cycles are we continuously repeating and are they there to show us about what is sacred within?’
Religion, philosophy and science are all inter-linked as are the different organs, body systems and parts of the body, once any one of them is studied in isolation to the others one can never gain a full and true understanding of any of them.
Fantastic sharing Joel, religion, philosophy and science as a lived way and with that we get to see what does and doesn’t work for us or what we do or don’t want to see until we do. It all becomes very real and very accessible and this is what it’s all about, and in this way we are evolving back to living the understanding and awareness of who we are and why we’re here … it’s open us up to life and the beauty we are all part of.
Truth is one thing that cannot be monopolized. In our desire for ownership, we try to capture and freeze what is forever unfolding, and what we think we have locked up in our own little cupboard is no longer alive.
Trying to separate religion, philosophy and science highlights for me how we can often try to compartmentalise life – to break it into fragments and isolate things without considering them in relation to the bigger picture, to the all that we are eternally connected with. I love how Serge Benhayon presents on ‘One Life’ – how all areas of life are intimately connected and relate with one another…
Very much so, everything is connected, as indeed we are as human beings; we might not be able to see those connections, but we can still feel them.
Everything is connected, as we are all too connected, ‘ I love how Serge Benhayon presents on ‘One Life’ – how all areas of life are intimately connected and relate with one another…
Well said Mary, universal knowledge and wisdom is not learnt in a university, it is through our pure connection to our Soul and God that we have access to this greater awareness and truth.
What I love about religion, science and philosophy is how they all go hand in hand and make sense of what life is, and a deeper understanding of how best to live it.
Humans love and know how to segment life. The argument is that doing this, it becomes easier to come to a deep understanding of it and produce change. What Universal Medicine brings to everybody’s consideration is first of all, awareness regarding the consequences of segmenting and secondly, the power of unifying. It is not just a different movement but one that opens countless doors to life.
Love this enquiry – and when will the Universities put this all together into an education that invites people to learn from their hearts and bodies, meanwhile discussing across these three disciplines?
I don’t think in general we ask enough big questions – we tend to accept things the way they are, but when we begin to explore philosophy, religion and science and what this means to our life, you can’t help but start questioning if there could be more than meets the eye, or more than what we accept to be “true”.
Absolutely, there is so much more to life than we are currently open to seeing.
This goes to expose why ‘paid science’ where the outcome is already pre-determined with some studies to justify the agenda of some does not work. In order for science, religion and philosophy to be in harmony it needs to be about all. When we reduce any of these down to make them suit ‘just a few’ we are no longer in the truth of what they are.
For anyone who knows innately that there is something missing in life, that there is something unexplained and that it feels like the planet has gone crazy, then this article can begin to unravel why we have these feelings. And even more so, offer a way to begin to ‘put the pieces together’ and to understand life, our choices and the choices of others.